Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
Who, exactly, is a martyr? That seemingly simple question is behind a controversial new exhibit by artists in Denmark that's ignited a fierce debate.
Even before the May 26 opening of the exhibit, called the Martyr Museum, critics claimed it endorsed terrorism and Denmark's culture minister, Bertel Haarder, described it as "crazy."
The controversy centers around the depiction of historic figures like Socrates and Joan of Arc near modern-day suicide bombers.
The exhibit is tucked away in a former slaughterhouse behind Copenhagen's central train station. Its white-tiled walls are lined with portraits and "reconstructed artifacts" like the vial of poison that Socrates drank after he was sentenced to death and the podium where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech.
But it's during the twice-a-day guided tour, led by actor Morten Hee Andersen, that the space comes to life with music and stage lighting.
In one section, visitors are shut in a meat locker as the guide falls to the floor to tell the story of Maximilian Kolbe, a Franciscan friar who voluntarily took the place of Jews the Nazis condemned to starve to death at the Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II.
Further along, the guide assumes a lotus position and, with trembling hands, recounts the 1963 self-immolation of Thich Quang Duc, who took his life to protest the treatment of Buddhists in South Vietnam. Photos of that event shocked the world at a time when the U.S. was becoming involved in the Vietnam War.
And finally, there's the section most responsible for the headlines: a room where the reconstructed artifacts flashing under strobe lights hit a little closer to home.
A melted keyboard from Ground Zero of the Sept. 11 attacks in New York. A portrait of Mohammed Atta, one of the men who carried out that attack.
There are also portraits of the two brothers, Ibrahim el-Bakraoui, who blew himself up in March at the Brussels airport, and Khalid el-Bakraoui, who blew himself up at a subway station an hour later. There is a crumpled coffee cup from the airport, and a display of nails that were used as shrapnel in the attack.
Amnesty International does not have the credentials to deem the refugee deal illegal. If they feel it is illegal they should bring it to the court and argue the case there.
That's right. Amnesty International’s Director for Europe and Central Asia has labelled the deal "illegal"
As far as I can work out Amnesty's justification for this statement is that the deal falls short of the standards set forth for the treatment of refugees in the 1951 Refugee Convention.
The principle of non-refoulement basically says 'you can't send refugees back to where they are going to be fucked with big style'
"No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion"
Luckily, this isn't done. Turkey is not a war-torn country, nor particularly dangerous. The deal includes criteria for Turkey to treat the refugees properly, and money is supposed to be provided to ensure this.
A particular social group is being expelled to the boarders of Europe where, Amnesty International thinks, you can plausibly argue that their freedoms are threatened. It's far from certain but your complete credulity when it comes to the deal here is strange.
There's no doubt there are 4.8 million refugees sitting on the boarder of a country in the throws of a civil war, in a part of Turkey where a separatist movement has been fighting against the government on and off for thirty years and the government in question doesn't have a great track record on human rights or the resources to cope with the crisis. That the deal provides resources and attaches conditions to that money is a good thing, and I hope it will be implemented well enough to avoid a humanitarian crisis.
On June 06 2016 19:01 Dapper_Cad wrote: I believe Amnesty feel able to take the position that the deal is illegal because it's refoulment at one remove. Yes, technically Europe isn't sending Syrians back to Syria (definitely illegal), but it is sending them to Turkey which is not following international standards for refugee care. This puts refugees in such a desperate situation that their basic human rights are under threat. For example: They have no right to work in Turkey and no route to obtaining that right, so they starve or become criminals.
Things can't be illegal just because Amnesty International considers them almost illegal. Oh and for your information, Turkey granted Syrian refugees the right to work back in January (Source) - although with limitations.
Yes, things can't be illegal just because Amnesty International says so. Why do you keep saying that? I hadn't seen your link about visas, I guess I chose a bad example of the sorts of human rights abuses that are occurring in and around the refugee camps. Perhaps I should have gone for child labour? Incidentally, any data on how many work permits have been issued to refugees since the announcement?
On June 06 2016 20:47 Ghostcom wrote: There is plenty to criticize about the deal, but it's a pretty far stretch to call it illegal. Similarly, there is plenty to criticize about Turkey
It is a stretch to call it illegal, that's why your first target said "probably" and I kept quoting Amnesty. Which of the plenty of criticisms we might level at the deal would you highlight?
On June 06 2016 20:47 Ghostcom wrote: but let's keep the hyperbole to a dull roar.
You didn't like my suggestion that Merkel recognised the Armenian Genocide as a warning to the Turks and the rest of Europe? Address it then. Still, it is a nice turn of phrase which deserves to be well used. Which admin came up with it again?
On June 07 2016 16:07 WhiteDog wrote: Anybody interested about the journey that the OECD made to finally understand that their policy against the crisis were stupid, here is your peace :
It is a good thing when organisations (or people) change in the face of incontrovertible evidence that their previously held positions were wrong and in contradiction of the facts.
But one has to be deeply cynical when these neo-liberal attack dog institutions such as the OECD and the IMF start changing tack – in a diametric fashion – with the same senior officials still in charge.
Simple justice would suggest that the executives of these organisations should resign forthwith as recognition of the damage their organisations have caused by bullying governments into policy implementation that were never consistent with any reasonable interpretation of what was going on.
why the focus on the imf when the actual actors are more of the ecb/european governments. you probably know the harshest demands on austerity were from germany etc net creditor national governments.
On June 07 2016 16:07 WhiteDog wrote: Anybody interested about the journey that the OECD made to finally understand that their policy against the crisis were stupid, here is your peace :
It is a good thing when organisations (or people) change in the face of incontrovertible evidence that their previously held positions were wrong and in contradiction of the facts.
But one has to be deeply cynical when these neo-liberal attack dog institutions such as the OECD and the IMF start changing tack – in a diametric fashion – with the same senior officials still in charge.
Simple justice would suggest that the executives of these organisations should resign forthwith as recognition of the damage their organisations have caused by bullying governments into policy implementation that were never consistent with any reasonable interpretation of what was going on.
why the focus on the imf when the actual actors are more of the ecb/european governments. you probably know the harshest demands on austerity were from germany etc net creditor national governments.
Because it's not about the institution but about the thinking (that they all share) and the slow recognition that they were wrong.
except when you look at places in south america, some discipline seems to be in order. there is a lot of space between extremes, and this wholesale condemnation of the IMF does not recognize the real disagreements
Amnesty International does not have the credentials to deem the refugee deal illegal. If they feel it is illegal they should bring it to the court and argue the case there.
That's right. Amnesty International’s Director for Europe and Central Asia has labelled the deal "illegal"
As far as I can work out Amnesty's justification for this statement is that the deal falls short of the standards set forth for the treatment of refugees in the 1951 Refugee Convention.
The principle of non-refoulement basically says 'you can't send refugees back to where they are going to be fucked with big style'
"No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion"
Luckily, this isn't done. Turkey is not a war-torn country, nor particularly dangerous. The deal includes criteria for Turkey to treat the refugees properly, and money is supposed to be provided to ensure this.
A particular social group is being expelled to the boarders of Europe where, Amnesty International thinks, you can plausibly argue that their freedoms are threatened. It's far from certain but your complete credulity when it comes to the deal here is strange.
There's no doubt there are 4.8 million refugees sitting on the boarder of a country in the throws of a civil war, in a part of Turkey where a separatist movement has been fighting against the government on and off for thirty years and the government in question doesn't have a great track record on human rights or the resources to cope with the crisis. That the deal provides resources and attaches conditions to that money is a good thing, and I hope it will be implemented well enough to avoid a humanitarian crisis.
On June 06 2016 19:01 Dapper_Cad wrote: I believe Amnesty feel able to take the position that the deal is illegal because it's refoulment at one remove. Yes, technically Europe isn't sending Syrians back to Syria (definitely illegal), but it is sending them to Turkey which is not following international standards for refugee care. This puts refugees in such a desperate situation that their basic human rights are under threat. For example: They have no right to work in Turkey and no route to obtaining that right, so they starve or become criminals.
Things can't be illegal just because Amnesty International considers them almost illegal. Oh and for your information, Turkey granted Syrian refugees the right to work back in January (Source) - although with limitations.
Yes, things can't be illegal just because Amnesty International says so. Why do you keep saying that? I hadn't seen your link about visas, I guess I chose a bad example of the sorts of human rights abuses that are occurring in and around the refugee camps. Perhaps I should have gone for child labour? Incidentally, any data on how many work permits have been issued to refugees since the announcement?
On June 06 2016 20:47 Ghostcom wrote: There is plenty to criticize about the deal, but it's a pretty far stretch to call it illegal. Similarly, there is plenty to criticize about Turkey
It is a stretch to call it illegal, that's why your first target said "probably" and I kept quoting Amnesty. Which of the plenty of criticisms we might level at the deal would you highlight?
On June 06 2016 20:47 Ghostcom wrote: but let's keep the hyperbole to a dull roar.
You didn't like my suggestion that Merkel recognised the Armenian Genocide as a warning to the Turks and the rest of Europe? Address it then. Still, it is a nice turn of phrase which deserves to be well used. Which admin came up with it again?
I think we need to start from the beginning again... it started with lastpuritan claiming the deal to be illegal, no ifs or possibly, or any other modifiers:
On June 06 2016 13:36 lastpuritan wrote: This whole refugee deal is illegal and probably against Geneva Conventions but you know.
"Tutti colpevoli, nessuno colpevole."
I asked for clarification and you linked Amnesty International which we both seem to agree are incapable of making such a call.
As for the rest you seem to conjure arguments from nothing (I didn't comment on your theory for the recognition of the Armenian genocide, not for a lack of guts to address it head on, but because it wasn't relevant to lastpuritans claim that the deal was illegal. But if you are really interested I think Germany recognised the genocide because it is the only reasonable thing to do).
Mostly Chomsky interviewing Varoufakis. Topics are neo-liberalism, democracy, austerity measures, who actually makes EU fiscal policy decisions etc etc.
On June 09 2016 00:53 oneofthem wrote: the ECHR may well find it illegal, specifically, against the 'mass expulsion' thing in european convention on human rights.
They might, and they might not. The entire ordeal is pretty dubiously written. I found the linked analysis below fairly educational for those of us without a law degree.
there is really egregious language at the head of it, and also the expulsion act itself is a black letter no in asylum law. this mass expulsion without individualized examination would require extraordinary justification because of the procedural defect
so an alarming reaction to this deal is very justified. either the court will strike it down or it would be acting outside of core asylum law principle in upholding the deal.
On June 09 2016 10:42 oneofthem wrote: there is really egregious language at the head of it, and also the expulsion act itself is a black letter no in asylum law. this mass expulsion without individualized examination would require extraordinary justification because of the procedural defect
so an alarming reaction to this deal is very justified. either the court will strike it down or it would be acting outside of core asylum law principle in upholding the deal.
On the other hand, many of the migrants do not want to be registered in Greece because they want to get to Germany by whatever means necessary, or know that they barely make a chance of obtaining refugee status because they come from countries that are at peace (Iran, Bangladesh, Morocco ...). This makes them illegal immigrants, not asylum seekers (per Dublin regulations you are required to register in the country of entry, not whichever country you find most suitable). If I'm not mistaken, Greece only sends back those who either refuse registration or had their asylum requests denied.
Mostly Chomsky interviewing Varoufakis. Topics are neo-liberalism, democracy, austerity measures, who actually makes EU fiscal policy decisions etc etc.
Funnily enough, I can't stand Varouflakis anymore.
He certainly has overstayed his welcome in the political arena.
I can't say I'm too impressed with the Greek govt either. I gave them a lot of credit at first but it looks like they never really made anything of it and pretty much just capitulated to creditor demands in their entirety.
Well, we are forgetting that they were sieged for some time with threats to close their banks and not being able to freely withdraw money from their bank accounts. With the lengths where the troika would had pushed to get their agenda going, there was very little the greek goverment could do.
Both related to the video and the greek goverment caved in, He is pretty right about the spanish minister bragging about it to dismiss Podemos, when they finally made the greek goverment cave in, the media echo'ed it for days.
In one section, visitors are shut in a meat locker as the guide falls to the floor to tell the story of Maximilian Kolbe, a Franciscan friar who voluntarily took the place of Jews the Nazis condemned to starve to death at the Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II.
Minor correction, he actually took the place of a polish guy..
Beside that, I'd like to ask you guys, do your national news keep up with the situation in Poland (European Comission, Venetian Commision, Constitutional Court) or do they not care?
No news on that here in Germany. Last news was this NATO exercise that nobody really wanted to do, but kind of had to and your government made a big deal out of.
How exactly has this anything to do with appeasement? Especially when the very same article sais that serving alcohol in Tunisia, by a muslim, during ramadan was no problem?
EPT
